Site supervisors and workers tend to have ”strained relationships”
How many times have I witnessed a site supervisor and a foreman arguing at a construction site? Site supervisors and workers tend to have very strained relationships on the job site.
People in the industry would probably think this is unavoidable given their positions. However, precisely because I have experience as both a construction manager and a craftsman, I can discern each party’s intentions from these exchanges. In this article, I’ll explain the differences in mindset between construction managers and craftsmen.
Site supervisors prioritize “quality of workmanship,” while craftsmen prioritize “speed of construction.”
As fundamental differences in how we think, these two perspectives are probably unavoidable. After all, the primary criterion for evaluating a site supervisor is the project evaluation score. I imagine there are many who have been on the receiving end of sarcastic remarks from clients or their superiors at work when they fail to earn a high score on a project.
As a result, when considering what is necessary to earn high scores on a construction project, the most important factor is, without a doubt, the quality of the main construction work. Quality control, which carries significant weight in the project evaluation, is the aspect that construction management engineers pay the most attention to.
On the other hand, from a craftsman’s perspective, isn’t the speed of construction the most important factor when considering profits? While it likely depends on the type of project, for small and medium-sized enterprises that primarily specialize in specialized construction work—such as slope stabilization, where projects tend to be concentrated in the short term and then dry up after a certain period, leaving them with downtime—the ability to complete one site quickly and move on to the next is crucial for generating profits.
As for the problems that arise from this difference of opinion, when constructing structures and the like, site supervisors tend to make detailed requests regarding construction methods in order to ensure high quality. Basically, the more one strives for high quality, the longer the construction process tends to be.
A longer construction schedule means delays in the craftsmen’s work, so for craftsmen focused on finishing the project as quickly as possible, such delays directly impact their profits. When working in such an environment, disagreements naturally lead to strained relationships.
It's important to understand each other's perspectives and be willing to compromise.
As I’ve said many times, for craftsmen, the most important factor in generating profit is how quickly they can complete each step of the process. They use their ingenuity to find ways to shorten the construction schedule even slightly and present their ideas to the site supervisor. For example, when a design calls for cast-in-place concrete structures, they may come up with creative construction methods that allow for the installation of precast elements instead.
From a craftsman’s perspective, when you consider the effort involved in building formwork and pouring concrete on-site, it makes more sense to clear away any obstacles so that precast elements can be installed—as this reduces both the number of steps and the amount of work required. At first glance, this seems like a valid argument. However, site supervisors surely understand that attempting to change the city hall’s design requires “numerical justification.”
At first glance, it might seem like the cast-in-place waterway could be replaced with a prefabricated product, but the consultant has quantified the flow rate calculations, and there is a solid basis for adhering to those specifications. We would need evidence strong enough to overturn that. Naturally, a design change can only be considered after we present figures that meet all the flow rate calculations and engage in discussions.
Craftsmen seem to understand this, yet they don’t really grasp it. Based on their own construction experience, they sometimes try to pressure the site supervisor into making changes. No matter how much they pressure the site supervisor, changes obviously cannot be made unless the client gives the go-ahead.
While some site supervisors use their strong negotiation skills to secure changes, most of them simply find a clever excuse from a different angle to alter the design. This often involves questioning whether construction is actually feasible in practice—for example, by pointing out that while the design specifications may not allow for it, there are physical obstacles on-site that make construction impossible—rather than focusing solely on the numbers.
There’s no doubt that these changes are also the result of the site supervisor’s ingenuity and trial and error. Without understanding the effort involved, isn’t it a bit off the mark to assume that a construction management engineer is incompetent simply because a change wasn’t approved?
Because of reasons like these, there are likely construction sites where the site supervisor and the workers don’t get along and don’t even speak to each other except during meetings. Having experienced both sides, my honest opinion is that the only way forward is to carry out the work at the very limit where both sides have made concessions.
Isn’t it most important, when resolving “conflict” issues, to lay our thoughts bare, propose terms we can compromise on after understanding each other’s perspectives, and then proceed with the project right at that limit?
